Qwest Punished by NSA for Non-Cooperation

nightcats writes "According to a story from the Rocky Mountain news, Qwest has received retaliatory action from the NSA for refusing to cooperate in the Bush administration's domestic data-mining activity (i.e., spying on Americans). 'The [just-released government] documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio's so-called "classified information" defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it. The secret contracts - worth hundreds of millions of dollars - made Nacchio optimistic about Qwest's future, even as his staff was warning him the company might not make its numbers, Nacchio's defense attorneys have maintained. But Nacchio didn't present that argument at trial. '"

Comments

Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

The linked article does not support the sensationalist nonsense presented in the summary.

Re:Nonsense

[gstoddart]

The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest.

Well, the opening paragraph of the linked article indicates that they thought it did mean that.

Although, I don't think it's the domestic spying program that's been in the news. The article seems to infer that he had refused to participate in some unnamed program (which predated 9/11) which he said would be "was both inappropriate and illegal".

I think the summary seems valid (as it's largely direct quotes from the article).

It seems to be the article which is drawing the conclusion that there was some secret/illegal program (possibly a precursor to the current one) involving the phone system, and that Nacchio's refusal to go along with it.

If I understand it, they're saying that had he been able to cite these secret contracts with the government as to why he thought they'd do well (but couldn't release the info to shareholders) he might have had a defense against his insider trading clauses -- because he would have been prohibited by law from divulging them.

Now, as to how much you can attribute the actions of the NSA et all to retaliation for not participating in the now infamous domestic spying program -- that seems like speculation in the article. It seems like the summary is merely conflating "a" phone spying program with "the" phone spying program. The poster of the article doesn't seem to have so much sensationalized, as slightly mis-interpreted.

Cheers

Re:huh?

[gstoddart]

What? That didn't make any sense in the summary, or in TFA. I didn't bring my bad grammar decoder ring to work today, can someone translate?

The assertion is that when he was CEO he had been told by the government he would be getting big, huge contracts. He used that as a basis to express positive earnings potential. When he declined to participate in a program he felt would have been illegal, they pulled those contracts.

They seem to be implying that, had he been allowed to at is insider trading trial, he would have referenced said contracts in his defense. But, he was prevented, possibly by the government or the judge. They refer to a heavily redacted document to support the belief that he wasn't doing anything illegal, but legitimately had a reason to believe the company had good things coming in the future, and therefore wasn't doing illegal insider trading. (ie. There really was a secret program he was being courted to help with, after he refused, they hung him out to dry).

Another implication, is that before 9/11, the White House was looking at implementing a program involving phones, and the NSA, and that the individual in question felt that it would have been illegal. By inference, this is related to the now well-known but not acknowledged (but still illegal) domestic spying program. There's little evidence offered to support this link.

At least, that's my best understanding of it.

Cheers